• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Thoughts on this try

Dickie E said:
Absolutely. I would be inconsistent otherwise
Click to expand...
Fair enough then. I don't think I would.

didds said:
somewhere in these forums there is a video of a hooker doing exactly that and scoring...

I _think_ it was this thread... but the linked YT video no longer exists.

basically IIRC somebody has the ball standing behind the touchline.
the hooker (?) approaches the touchline, walking, and the ball is tossed gently to him - importantly the toss complies with whatever is required for a legal throw in.

The hooker (?) catches it , then runs the final very few metres ands scores.
Click to expand...
There's also the viral vid of a penalty kicker on the 5 kicking to touch, and one of his teammates runs, plucks the ball out of the air before it reaches the touchline and scores a try.
 
Rich_NL said:
You're looking at it from the point of view of empathy with Kolbe. Restarting is not a mental intention of the player with the ball, it is an action that reopens the contest. The Argentinian player saw that a drop kick had been taken, in a situation that that was required to restart, and took positive action accordingly. Under what law or definition can you deny him his try?
Click to expand...
Kolbe did his thoughtless kick and the ball was in the air.

Let's say you are the ref and you did process it lightening quick ..

Are we in a situation where
- if a SA player catches it and strolls back into the in-goal to take the GLDO, then carry on - the ball was dead all the time (because if it was live we are talking YC and PT and no ref is going there, surely)
- but if a Arg player catches it and darts into the in-goal then it's a try - because the ball was in fact live all the time.

Well, which is it ? live or dead?
 
Let's say I'm the ref, as omniscient and blessed with instantaneous perception, conception and decision as I feel others ought to see me ;) I'd see whether there was a contest where the ball was going and either call "taken, ball is live" or keep schtum and let them settle. Similar to the lazy/quick throw in - if no-one thinks the ball is live or acts as if the ball is live, why make a rod for your back? But if you don't want anyone to count it as a drop-out, don't drop kick it - it seems like sensible advice, that's why you can throw or punt the ball forward to the kicker as he trots back without restarting things.

It's an interesting point about the SA player catching it - I don't think you'd have to give a PT/YC if you didn't think it was cynical play, a penalty would be enough, and it's confusing enough as to give the benefit of the doubt. As with any quick restart, as long as you don't interfere with play while you're out of position you're fine and otherwise you're subject to sanction.

Pragmatically at grass roots, blow up and say "sorry, I wasn't ready, didn't see the kick - retake please!" gets you out of a lot of bother.
 
crossref said:
We do have to consider safety as well. If some players think the ball is dead, while other players think it's live, that's potentially very dangerous.
Click to expand...
And we also have to consider the efforts to deceive. Open field line outs and other types of blah they want to try gain from.

Kolbe drop kicked the ball into the field of play. The game was live.

The Argentina player fielded the ball in good faith, carried it into in goal and grounded the ball. Try. Simple. I would be surprised if Gardner would determine anything else, unless he was going to make up the Law.

If a SA player had retrieved and run 80m I think they would be aggrieved if they were pulled back
 
Dickie E said:
Absolutely. I would be inconsistent otherwise
Click to expand...
Inconsistent with what? Was it an illegal throw? If it travelled 6 m and met the obligations for straight as required by the circumstances why would you stifle the desire to play fast and potentially loose rugby.

Your role is to facilitate the game not impose a style of play on the teams.
 
That's the problem with intent. Only the individual knows what they intended, the rest of use have to view the actions and decide. It might not have been in your immediate thoughts as a potential action but that is quite different.

The ball was thrown and the hooker ran with it, those things don't occur unless intended. Why would you want to block that ambition?

If the hooker caught and walked over to the touchline and prepped for the throw we would just allow the game to run because that is what we expect but we should be able to cope with unexpected but legal decisions.
 
BikingBud said:
That's the problem with intent. Only the individual knows what they intended, the rest of use have to view the actions and decide. It might not have been in your immediate thoughts as a potential action but that is quite different.

The ball was thrown and the hooker ran with it, those things don't occur unless intended. Why would you want to block that ambition?

If the hooker caught and walked over to the touchline and prepped for the throw we would just allow the game to run because that is what we expect but we should be able to cope with unexpected but legal decisions.
Click to expand...
What if the thrower and the hooker didn't intend the QTI, but the intercepting opponent,who catches ball & scores try, did?
All too many what-ifs for me
 
Player scores try then kicks stationary ball off ground to team mate who is waiting to take conversion.
This kick meets the requirements for a conversion kick (ball stationary, on ground and in line with try), so has the try scorer inadvertently taken his own conversion kick? Didn't intend to but heigh-ho
 
crossref said:
Can a GLDO be taken unintentionally?
It's a good one

I am not sure the game had restarted ..

If a south African player had gathered the ball intending to take the GLDO would AG have given a PK to Argentina for offside ? No.

So I don't think the game had restarted
Click to expand...
A minor correction. It's now called a TLDO
 
I've now seen the action being discussed.

Whatever TF was or was not going on with that bizarre drop kick out of the in goal area - that's a try now. Suck it up butter cup if you didnt mean to do it - bet you wont do it again.
 
Dickie E said:
What if the thrower and the hooker didn't intend the QTI, but the intercepting opponent,who catches ball & scores try, did?
All too many what-ifs for me
Click to expand...
Same as post 1. If the throw goes beyond the 5m and is caught by the opposition who then trot off and score more fool them.

ETA the game is full of what ifs.

If the prop hadn't swung his arse out he wouldn't be pinged for boring in.

If the centre hadn't dropped the ball the winger might have scored from the 3v1 overlap.

If the full back had only just remembered that the ball was passed back into their half then the 50/22 5 m out would be a peach
 
Last edited:
crossref said:
So Nigel Owens I think is basically saying that the try should not have been awarded (whistle watch)
Click to expand...

As I take it, he says everything was correct in law and the try was correctly awarded because he took the dropkick... but also you *could* manage it if you *feel* etc...

I think he's basically avoiding it, saying it's up to the ref to decide. Thanks for that Nigel :P
 
Rich_NL said:
As I take it, he says everything was correct in law and the try was correctly awarded because he took the dropkick... but also you *could* manage it if you *feel* etc...

I think he's basically avoiding it, saying it's up to the ref to decide. Thanks for that Nigel :P
Click to expand...
Yes I think his meaning was that while you couldn't say the decision was wrong, exactly, it's not the decision he would have made

Which basically is what I think as well
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top